Our team of litigators collectively has decades of experience in trial and appellate litigation, with particular expertise in litigation involving the federal government. We know how the federal government will defend against actions because we have done just that, either as attorneys for the Department of Justice in high-stakes constitutional and administrative law matters, or as in-house counsel for the agencies being sued. In private practice, the members of our team have won cases of enormous public import, including multiple victories at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our approach to litigation is client centric. We provide candid pre-litigation assessments on the strength of clients’ potential claims, the risks and benefits of bringing suit, and the likely costs of litigation. We do not bring lawsuits to generate headlines for our firm. We file suit only when we believe it is the best option available to our clients.

In the short time since we launched our firm, we have achieved litigation success in a number of matters, including:

• American Association of Nurse Practitioners v. McMahon, No. 1:26-cv-01780 (D.D.C.): We represent a coalition of schools and professionals challenging a Department of Education rule that limits the graduate degrees that are eligible for higher student loan caps under recent legislation. We won a preliminary stay of the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, with the court finding that the rule is likely contrary to law.

• American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald , No. 1:25-cv-03657 (S.D.N.Y.): We won a resounding victory on behalf of three of the nation’s leading humanities organizations in a suit challenging the mass termination of grants at the National Endowment for the Humanities. We strategically brought only constitutional claims against the terminations, and the court ruled in our favor on all of these claims. The court found, based on evidence we unearthed in discovery, that operatives from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), rather than NEH, actually carried out the terminations, despite DOGE lacking any legal authority to do so. The court also found that the terminations violated the First Amendment in targeting projects based on their perceived support for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that DOGE violated equal protection by choosing certain grants to terminate (with the assistance of ChatGPT) solely because the grants involved subjects of a specific race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

• American Historical Association v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01169 (D.D.C.): We are leading litigation challenging the Administration’s determination that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. We won a preliminary injunction in May 2026, with the district court adopting our arguments regarding the Act’s constitutionality and enjoining the defendants to comply with the Act. The case is currently on appeal in the D.C. Circuit.

• Child Trends v. Department of Education, No. 8:25-cv-1154 (D. Md.): We represented two educational research organizations in challenging the Department of Education's elimination of two statutorily mandated programs, known as the Regional Educational Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers programs, as well as the Department's refusal to spend roughly $200 million in funds appropriated for the programs. We won the case, with the court ordering the Department to re-establish the programs and spend all of the appropriated money before it expired. The Department did not appeal, and it complied with the court’s order by restoring all of the grants and contracts that had been terminated under the programs. 

• City of Saint Paul v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-03899 (D.D.C.): In a first-in-its-kind lawsuit, we prevailed on an equal protection challenge when the Department of Energy terminated several hundred awards held exclusively by grantees in states that voted for the Democratic candidate in the 2024 presidential election. We represented grantees, sub-grantees, and beneficiaries of seven of those awards, and the court vacated the agency’s terminations of the awards. The Department of Energy subsequently reinstated the awards and our clients’ projects have gone forward.

• Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright, No. 25-cv-12249-WGY (D. Mass.): Representing the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists, we prevailed on claims that the Department of Energy violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in establishing a “Climate Working Group” to produce a report calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change. EPA had relied extensively on the group’s report in its proposed rule to rescind its Endangerment Finding on the threats of climate change, but after our victory establishing that the report was produced unlawfully, EPA disavowed any reliance on the group’s findings in its final rule.

• Global Health Council v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00402 (D.D.C.): We represent a group of contractors and grantees bringing suit with respect to the elimination of USAID and State Department foreign aid programs, and those agencies’ refusal to spend foreign assistance appropriations that Congress provided for humanitarian, health, and democracy-promotion purposes. On September 3, 2025, we won a preliminary injunction compelling the agencies to spend roughly $11 billion in appropriations that were set to expire on September 30, 2025. The government subsequently obtained a stay from the Supreme Court with respect to more than $4 billion of these funds that the President had proposed to Congress for rescission, but the injunction remained in effect for the remaining $6.5 billion in expiring funds. As a result of the injunction, the government was forced to obligate that $6.5 billion before it expired. The case remains ongoing..

• Protect Democracy Project v. Office of Management & Budget, No. 1:25-cv-01111 (D.D.C.): Representing Protect Democracy, we successfully challenged OMB’s refusal to comply with a federal law that requires OMB to post its “apportionments” of congressional appropriations online. We won summary judgment at the district court, and the D.C. Circuit unanimously denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal. As a result, OMB posted the apportionments that it had kept hidden, which revealed novel strategies that OMB has employed to use its apportionments to limit and control agency spending.

• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-00279 (D.R.I.): On behalf of state coalitions against domestic violence and sexual assault, we are challenging new conditions being imposed by the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) on its formula and discretionary grants. Those conditions, which carry the threat of False Claims Act liability, cover topics including diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender ideology, serving undocumented persons, social justice efforts, and interactions with law enforcement. We won a nationwide stay of all of the new conditions pursuant to 5 USC 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The government did not appeal, and the case is proceeding in district court.

• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Kennedy, No. 1:25-cv-00342 (D.R.I.): In a separate suit on behalf of state coalitions against domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as organizations that provide services to the homeless, we are challenging conditions that HHS and HUD are imposing to preclude grantees from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion and “gender ideology,” and from facilitating elective abortions. After winning a series of temporary restraining orders, the district court granted a preliminary injunction and a nationwide stay of the challenged conditions under the Administrative Procedure Act.

• Anchorage School District v. Dep’t of Education, No. 1:25-cv-00347 (D.R.I.): We successfully represented a coalition of school districts, teachers unions, a state PTA, and a nonprofit organization challenging the Department of Education’s unwillingness to release billions of dollars in formula grant funds that must be distributed to local school districts. Shortly after we sued and moved for a preliminary injunction, the Department released the withheld funds that were supposed to have been already released.

• Child Trends, Inc. v. Kennedy, No. 8:2025-cv-01479 (D. Md.): When our client learned that HHS was about to terminate seven of its grants, we brought a due process challenge to block HHS from terminating the grants. After we filed the lawsuit and the district court indicated that we would likely succeed in our argument that our client had a due process property interest in its grants, we successfully negotiated a settlement pursuant to which HHS agreed not to terminate any of the client’s grants through the remainder of their budget periods.

• Jones v. Dep’t of Labor, No. 1:25-cv-12653 (D. Mass): We brought a class action suit on behalf of senior citizens who participate in the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), a program that provides a lifeline to unemployed seniors seeking to transition back into the workforce. We challenged the refusal of the Department of Labor and the Office of Management and Budget to renew and fund the program, as federal law requires. Shortly after we sued and indicated we would seek a preliminary injunction, DOL announced that they would restart the program and release the funds appropriated for it.